DNA Forensics and Justice: How Science Is Reshaping India’s Courts

DNA is the essence of life—and an ever-expanding frontier where science, society, and justice continue to uncover new possibilities.

Law and DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) science often intersect, especially in criminal and family law. These intersections appear in many situations, such as using DNA to establish paternity or maternity in succession disputes or maintenance cases. They also raise ethical questions, including the risk of undermining a child’s legitimacy and future.

DNA evidence can both convict and exonerate. As science advances, its role in forensic evidence continues to expand. This article examines how DNA science supports the pursuit of justice in criminal forensics and also how it can sometimes hinder it. It also examines how the new criminal laws address this inconsistency.

Being free from human biases, DNA evidence offers credible objectivity that human evidence fails at. Hence, it provides strong persuasive value for justice. An optimist would believe that DNA forensics not only simplifies investigations but also makes judicial decision-making easier. Such optimism must be tempered with caution – no investigation is easy, as when ease in investigation creeps in, it happens with the help of procedural shortcuts, often to the detriment of an innocent.

One of the most harrowing cases that shook the core of the country was the murder of Pradyuman Thakur in 2017. The irony that a little boy gets his life taken away within the safe premises of his school instigated a public outcry that demanded swift justice for Pradyuman. The initial investigation by the Gurugram Police nearly derailed this pursuit, and within 24 hours, a culprit was brought to the fore, the bus conductor named Ashok Kumar, with unsubstantiated circumstantial evidence.

However, he was saved when the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) took over and told the court that there was no evidence against Ashok Kumar in the Pradyuman murder case, as DNA reports ruled out his involvement.

Conversely, the Chhawla Gangrape-Murder Case of 2012 demonstrates how conclusive and scientific evidence cannot stand up to judicial scrutiny in the event of a shoddy investigation. DNA markers were found at several locations of the crime scene, and the semen of one of the accused was found in the vaginal swab of the victim. Poorly executed investigation cast a shadow of doubt on the credibility of evidence, and the court had to acquit the accused, even suggesting the possibility of evidence tampering.

The two cases discussed represent the two opposite ends of the spectrum – in one, DNA forensics safeguarded an innocent. In other words, it proved to be of no value due to investigative deficiencies. The variable underlying this disparity can be attributed to the integrity of the investigation.

The new criminal laws – Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Bhartiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and Bhartiya SakshyaAdhiniyam (BSA) – mark a landmark shift in the legal framework, especially in its approach to forensics. Section 176(3) of the BNSS mandates that forensic experts inspect the scene of a crime and that such inspections be video recorded. This has revolutionised the forensic investigation by maximising transparency and minimising discrepancies. Had this provision existed during the Chhawla murder, it would have preserved the integrity of the police investigation, and the true picture would have become clear.

To conclude, while DNA forensics is a powerful tool to meet the ends of justice, the interplay between the new laws and their implication on the investigation procedure is detrimental to the future of forensic evidence. If the aim is achieved, DNA forensics will emerge as the guardian of justice and a deterrent to crime.

(Dr. Kumar is a retired IPS officer and forensic advisor to the Assam Government. Manya Jain is a student of National Forensic University, Guwahati.)